There was a meme going around a few years ago about Pedro Pascal “being in everything.” It also seemed the internet had a hate hardon for the guy, I could never figure out why, but “overexposed” was the dominant “neutral” take.
Since we have analytics for things, has anyone done the numbers to see if Pedro Pascal was objectively more exposed than other actors?
Ryan Gosling, who also seems to similarly be in everything (especially in similar genres to Pascal) but without eliciting any complaints, would be a good point of comparison…
‘Star power’ can fade pretty quickly. He’s making hay while the sun shines, as they say.
Samuel L. Jackson would like to have a word.
That word?
Motherfucker.
Pedro Pascal is popular due to his roles in successful and popular shows and movies, and because of his public stances on social issues and his social media presence. Movie producers want to put him in stuff because he’s popular so more people will watch.
He was objectively not in everything: Mystery solved!
post a link to your substack, please
I know/knew a guy who was going on about how Pascal came “out of nowhere” and is in everything because its a part of mind control or secret influence campaign. I guess Pascal has a trans-person as a relative, or something, and is speaking out on trans-rights or something? I’m not quite sure what he was on about, I stopped listening quite early on into his weird little rant. When he finally shut up and was waiting for a reply from me, I just said “I dont know, I’ve only seen him in that Star Wars show.”
I wonder if that guy is still alive. He was taking quite a lot of drugs.
[Pedros sister is trans and he brought her along to red carpet events]
That would explain why the weirdos have it out for him
There are thousands of movies made every year.
Do *you" think one single actor was objectively in most of them?
He rose to fame very fast and charmed everyone and their uncle so every studio wanted to milk it while it lasted. There was a wave that led arguably to over exposure but of fucking course he wasn’t in most movies.
Bravo. Well done.
Is it possible that “in everything” is in quotes for a reason?
Tell me your ideas.
My idea is that you can look up on IMDB how many movies he was in that particular year and compare with your favourite actors instead of asking somebody else to do it for you.
Will IMDB also tell me how many viewers he was exposed to compared to other actors?
You could be in 20 movies in a year, and if nobody saw them, it wouldn’t make you “overexposed.”
They used to, but now it’s behind IMDb pro, though you are able to lookup box office numbers for movies elsewhere to give yourself an idea.
Box office is something, but isn’t going to capture streaming, like GoT (which I think at least has Nielsens) and Narcos (Netflix views are a black box).
Thanks for at least addressing the issue. Amazing how many people can’t.
Don’t say “objectively” when it isn’t objective?
why do i bother to write anything past the title
I guess nostupidquestions implies nostupidanswers.
I don’t think people have done the numbers, in part because he isn’t in “everything”, just overexposed.
The problem is that the schedule for release usually isn’t under the actor’s control and you can have several major projects with large marketing efforts one after another.
If you don’t like the actor and frequently watch media that includes movie or television promotion, that actor will be on constantly since they are promoting several major projects in a row.
HEHE yeah he was not in everything. Once he had his big break in GOT he was churning out three to four products a year.
Once he hit the big time, I seemed to see him pop up everywhere. Whilst watching my box set DVDs of Law & Order Criminal Intent, he turned up in a very early, ‘before he was famous’ appearance, playing the role of an incompetent kidnapper
My earliest Pascal-sighting was a one-off in the freshman college season of Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
Was Pedro Pascal objectively “in everything”?
No. He wasn’t even in the majority of productions.I don’t have any numbers.
Personally I didn’t notice the attitude shift about him until the Mandalorian movie came out and it was obvious that he was probably on set for 2 hours for that top billing role, while doubles were wearing the armor in every scene but one. It, to me, seems like one part of a growing frustration with current blockbuster movies (the kind that really like to cast Pascal). Everything is green screen, stories are recycled, its all about marketing, and now the actors aren’t even there half the time any more.
It is odd people would get sick of an actor from a role where you never see his face.
Of course not.
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion…
You’re welcome, I felt this was such a esteemed question that it needed an extra air of gravitas.
Had a quick look on Rotten tomatoes and he was in several flashy popular films and TV series which spanned a lot of genres so “everyone” probably saw him in something. Likely other actors were in more things and more viewed things but in more specific roles or types of film so you don’t get that feeling of saturation.
Yes, just “total views” wouldn´t be good information if he was in a genre ghetto; we’d want UNIQUE views, that is to say, how many individual people saw Pedro Pascal in something.
deleted by creator
